Re: [Groff] -mandoc alternative

[Werner LEMBERG]

> In terms of uncertain output, mdoc(7) and mdoc.samples(7) -- not
> even to mention the melange of troff(1), groff(1), groff_char(7),
> etc. -- make for an irregular, fragmented reference.  [...]

What you criticize is related to boarder cases of the non-existent
definition of the mdoc format.  Don't blame groff for this!

> [...] All of these have answers, but the lack of reference causes
> uncertainty.

This is not our fault.

>  The manuals bundled with mandoc are re-writes (or still being
> re-written) of the above, with a specific eye toward compositional
> regularity.

You would do us a great favour if you collect ambiguities and report
them here so that we can find a common solution -- and document it.

> In terms of variegated output, OpenBSD and Linux, for example,
> render `Nd' macros with an En dash (the former, until recently, was
> just an escaped minus sign), while NetBSD uses an Em dash.  The set
> of available macros is non-uniform (Lk?  Mt?).  The available
> special character set differs.  The set of installed manuals
> differs.  Some systems rendered `Pa' with an underline; some don't.
> Macro default widths vary widely (see `Er').

Again, this is not a problem of groff per se.

> This all disregards my biggest problem with groff in the sense of
> -mdoc: given -Thtml, how can I embolden only variable types?

-Thtml is still experimental, and Gaius has unfortunately neither time
nor interest to fix pending issues.


    Werner